Derek Chauvin Trial - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15168407
wat0n wrote:And often, that's because it wouldn't pass a grand jury.


I doubt it.

And I predict you will not support this claim with evidence,

Depends on the circumstances, had Chauvin used his firearm I'm certain the arrest would have come way quicker. This is keeping in mind that the caller said Floyd "seemed drunk", which complicates things. Of course the autopsy came out ruling the death a homicide and hence Chauvin was arrested, and now was found guilty. This is much better than how things work in countries like Cuba, where cops can shoot and kill people and not face any charges at all, even when the guy killed is Black.


So yes, you honestly think that a black man could kill someone in broad daylight in front of a crowd of people with cameras and walk around free for days afterwards.

Indeed, but that's why they are all facing trial


Yes, and again after a long time, international media attention and months of protests.
By wat0n
#15168409
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt it.

And I predict you will not support this claim with evidence,


We already went through plenty of cases that didn't pass the grand jury stage.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So yes, you honestly think that a black man could kill someone in broad daylight in front of a crowd of people with cameras and walk around free for days afterwards.


Did you read what I wrote?

Anyway, had Chauvin been Black and Floyd been white, yes, I think it wouldn't have been radically different even if this white Floyd's death was filmed. Well, there could have been less attention around it, who knows...

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and again after a long time, international media attention and months of protests.


What? They were arrested within few days, not after months.
#15168411
wat0n wrote:We already went through plenty of cases that didn't pass the grand jury stage.


My prediction was correct.

Did you read what I wrote?

Anyway, had Chauvin been Black and Floyd been white, yes, I think it wouldn't have been radically different even if this white Floyd's death was filmed. Well, there could have been less attention around it, who knows...


If you want to believe that, feel free. I doubt you will find many people who share your belief .

What? They were arrested within few days, not after months.


Actually, it was weeks after Mr, Floyd’s deaths.

But since you apparently believe murderers are usually allowed to walk around free after killing someone in front of witnesses, this is probably an appropriate amount of time.
By wat0n
#15168412
Pants-of-dog wrote:My prediction was correct.


Why would I repeat myself? We went through it on the original GF mega thread. You can look the examples up there if you want.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to believe that, feel free. I doubt you will find many people who share your belief .


If you say so... I actually recall we saw some examples of filmed police killings of whites no one cared about in the past threads.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, it was weeks after Mr, Floyd’s deaths.

But since you apparently believe murderers are usually allowed to walk around free after killing someone in front of witnesses, this is probably an appropriate amount of time.


Chauvin was arrested on May 29th, the day after the autopsy report was finished. The other 3 were charged, and I think arrested, on June 3rd.

Interesting to see how the goalposts changed from months to a single week.

Allow me to remind you of the example of Hansel Hernandez, an Afro-Cuban killed by a Cuban police officer in broad daylight who has not been arrested to this day. Since you regard Cuba as an example to follow for other countries, I think this is relevant to see who among us actually believes police officers who kill Black people should be allowed to walk free ;)

At last, and as another reminder, you were arguing Chauvin would be let go free so it's not like your knowledge of the American legal system is particularly great.
#15168414
Saeko wrote:@Unthinking Majority

The jury is anonymous. Your points are nonsense.

Which points? I don't understand what your point about an anonymous jury means.

Imagine if Trump came out and condemned the jury's decision publicly.
#15168415
wat0n wrote:Why would I repeat myself? We went through it on the original GF mega thread. You can look the examples up there if you want.

If you say so... I actually recall we saw some examples of filmed police killings of whites no one cared about in the past threads.


None of this is an argument.

Chauvin was arrested on May 29th, the day after the autopsy report was finished. The other 3 were charged, and I think arrested, on June 3rd.

Interesting to see how the goalposts changed from months to a single week.


That is because the original point, which you have not refuted, is that most murderers are not allowed to walk around freely for any time (be it days, weeks, months, whatever) after killing so eone in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras.

You have, instead, made the ridiculous claim that this is completely normal.

Allow me to remind you of the example of Hansel Hernandez, an Afro-Cuban killed by a Cuban police officer in broad daylight who has not been arrested to this day. Since you regard Cuba as an example to follow for other countries, I think this is relevant to see who among us actually believes police officers who kill Black people should be allowed to walk free ;)


Whataboutism and strawman. Ignored for two reasons.

At last, and as another reminder, you were arguing Chauvin would be let go free so it's not like your knowledge of the American legal system is particularly great.


And a personal attack. Classy.

Considering history, Mr. Floyd’s killer was statistically likely to be acquitted. I am glad I was wrong in my prediction. I would like to be wrong about more predictions. Unfortunately, that almost never happens.
By wat0n
#15168416
Pants-of-dog wrote:None of this is an argument.


If so, you don't have one either. I have provided examples of cops who were let free by grand juries, even if DAs tried indicting them. You made grand claims without providing much evidence, even in that thread.

Pants-of-dog wrote:That is because the original point, which you have not refuted, is that most murderers are not allowed to walk around freely for any time (be it days, weeks, months, whatever) after killing so eone in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras.

You have, instead, made the ridiculous claim that this is completely normal.


No, I said it depends on the case, which is different, and that's simply because in that particular case it was necessary to wait for the autopsy for the proper charges to be filed. I even said that, had Chauvin shot Floyd, he'd have been arrested way sooner.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whataboutism and strawman. Ignored for two reasons.


No, you are ignoring it because it shows a double standard: Police killings of Blacks get a pass if the police force involved works for a socialist dictatorship.

So, instead, you whine about how Minnesota took *gasp* a few days to arrest Chauvin and the other 3 officers and then the former was found guilty as charged by courts, all while not saying anything about a just as bad case carried out by socialist police forces.

It actually illustrates an all too common double standard among your ilk.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And a personal attack. Classy.


No, it's a statement of fact. I was surprised about the second degree murder charge, until I saw the "unintentional" type under Minnesota law.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Considering history, Mr. Floyd’s killer was statistically likely to be acquitted. I am glad I was wrong in my prediction. I would like to be wrong about more predictions. Unfortunately, that almost never happens.


Sure :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15168419
You two are the most stubborn people I've ever seen. I'm going to make a "Best-of-collage" with you both going in circles;

"I claim this"

"No, this is what it really is"

"No, you have nothing to support that"

"Yes, here are some sources"

"Your sources don't support that"

"Yes, they do"

"No, they don't"

"You claimed it was *****"

"No, I never claimed that"

"Yes, you did"

"No, I didn't"

I'm imagining you stuck together in cabin for a year, debating 17 different topics and not agreeing on anything. :D
By wat0n
#15168420
MadMonk wrote:You two are the most stubborn people I've ever seen. I'm going to make a "Best-of-collage" with you both going in circles;

"I claim this"

"No, this is what it really is"

"No, you have nothing to support that"

"Yes, here are some sources"

"Your sources don't support that"

"Yes, they do"

"No, they don't"

"You claimed it was *****"

"No, I never claimed that"

"Yes, you did"

"No, I didn't"

I'm imagining you stuck together in cabin for a year, debating 17 different topics and not agreeing on anything. :D


Welcome to Chilean politics :lol:

Spoiler: show
Well, much better than how it usually goes actually
#15168438
wat0n wrote:If so, you don't have one either. I have provided examples of cops who were let free by grand juries, even if DAs tried indicting them. You made grand claims without providing much evidence, even in that thread.


My grand claims were that cops generally get away with killing unarmed people, especially if they are BIPOC.

You never seem to disagree. You simply point out isolated cases where another result occurred.

No, I said it depends on the case, which is different, and that's simply because in that particular case it was necessary to wait for the autopsy for the proper charges to be filed. I even said that, had Chauvin shot Floyd, he'd have been arrested way sooner.


Yes, I know you said it depends on the case.

That is why I specifically mentioned that in this case, there was already publicly available evidence showing murder. In this case, the murder happened in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras.

And you then argued that in cases like this,, people normally walk free until there is an autopsy.

And I chose not to believe that.

No, you are ignoring it because it shows a double standard: Police killings of Blacks get a pass if the police force involved works for a socialist dictatorship.

So, instead, you whine about how Minnesota took *gasp* a few days to arrest Chauvin and the other 3 officers and then the former was found guilty as charged by courts, all while not saying anything about a just as bad case carried out by socialist police forces.

It actually illustrates an all too common double standard among your ilk.


You do gave a habit of accusing me of positions I do not hold, then assuming I hold these positions because of some moral flaw, and then use that imaginary moral flaw to justify rude behaviour to me.

If you start that again, I will finish our discussion.

No, it's a statement of fact. I was surprised about the second degree murder charge, until I saw the "unintentional" type under Minnesota law.

Sure :lol: :lol: :lol:


If you wish to believe something bad about me, feel free.

It is still a historical fact that cops generally get away with killing unarmed people, especially BIPOC.

Mr. Floyd’s killer was convicted because:

1. He did it broad daylight.
2. He did it in front of a crowd of cameras.
3. There were nationwide protests.
4. There was international media attention.

I salute the black people of the USA for doing all of this in order to get some justice. I do not think they should have to do this in order to get justice and the fact that this needs to be done (in order to merely create a viable opportunity for conviction) runs counter to the egalitarian values of liberal democracy.
By wat0n
#15168442
Pants-of-dog wrote:My grand claims were that cops generally get away with killing unarmed people, especially if they are BIPOC.

You never seem to disagree. You simply point out isolated cases where another result occurred.


But the reason is important. If it's because of a grand jury decision, then it's not really the same as simply prosecutors not charging.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I know you said it depends on the case.

That is why I specifically mentioned that in this case, there was already publicly available evidence showing murder. In this case, the murder happened in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras.

And you then argued that in cases like this,, people normally walk free until there is an autopsy.

And I chose not to believe that.


Yet the means used to commit murder are also important, don't you think? You can't really compare what actually happened with (say) Chauvin pulling his gun and shooting Floyd in the head. The latter wouldn't have needed an autopsy to determine the full cause of Floyd's death at all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You do gave a habit of accusing me of positions I do not hold, then assuming I hold these positions because of some moral flaw, and then use that imaginary moral flaw to justify rude behaviour to me.

If you start that again, I will finish our discussion.


On the other hand, when we discussed this issue in the corresponding threads, you didn't really seem to be so quick in condemning that sort of behavior. Much of the arguments when it comes to human rights in Cuba end up in denials.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to believe something bad about me, feel free.

It is still a historical fact that cops generally get away with killing unarmed people, especially BIPOC.

Mr. Floyd’s killer was convicted because:

1. He did it broad daylight.
2. He did it in front of a crowd of cameras.
3. There were nationwide protests.
4. There was international media attention.

I salute the black people of the USA for doing all of this in order to get some justice. I do not think they should have to do this in order to get justice and the fact that this needs to be done (in order to merely create a viable opportunity for conviction) runs counter to the egalitarian values of liberal democracy.


And yet the key factor here was point 2, since it allowed everyone to see what happened. It's also what's so different about the historical fact you mention: Back then, the evidence wasn't readily available to see what actually happened, meaning society and jurors in particular don't have to rely on presumptions or goodwill. Protests also didn't come as readily since actually looking at what happens prompts a public reaction, but I think the fact that videos are hard evidence (until deep fakes become popularized at least) is more important for the trials themselves.

Given how the US legal system works, we'll get more verdicts like this one, just as we have been able to get in the past few years.
#15168443
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n
Instead, we see that it takes almost a year to bring a cop to justice after they kill someone in broad daylight in front of a crowd with cameras.

The courts are often a bit slow. It's also during a COVID pandemic so there's further barriers and slowness etc. 1 year seems normal I guess. It's a high profile murder case. They have to select a jury, both sides need time to gather evidence, question witnesses, and build a case, and they have to get in line behind any other back-up court cases , especially again with COVID.

I don't think the length of time to convict is abnormal. The OJ Simspon case, where they were basically doing the opposite (trying to convict a black man for murder) took well over a year too (June 1994 date of murder, Oct. 1995 date of verdict).
#15168445
Pants-of-dog wrote:If a black man killed a police officer in broad daylight in front of a crowd of cameras, do you honestly believe that it would take 330 days for the killer to end up in jail?

Would it have, for example, required international media attention and months of protests to get to this point?

I think a better question is:

-what would have happened to Chauvin if people weren't filming the incident?
-would the police chief have testified against Chauvin had there not been such international outcry and pressure put on him?
-Would the verdict have been guilty had there not been so much attention on the case against Chauvin, and/or there not been 4 black people on the jury?
#15168448
wat0n wrote:But the reason is important. If it's because of a grand jury decision, then it's not really the same as simply prosecutors not charging.


When you say that, you are agreeing with me and then describing different reasons why I am right.

Yet the means used to commit murder are also important, don't you think? You can't really compare what actually happened with (say) Chauvin pulling his gun and shooting Floyd in the head. The latter wouldn't have needed an autopsy to determine the full cause of Floyd's death at all.


The burden of evidence for arresting Mr. Floyd’s killer was satisfied without the autopsy results. Any other person who had acted in the same way would have been arrested while committing the murder.

And yet the key factor here was point 2, since it allowed everyone to see what happened. It's also what's so different about the historical fact you mention: Back then, the evidence wasn't readily available to see what actually happened, meaning society and jurors in particular don't have to rely on presumptions or goodwill. Protests also didn't come as readily since actually looking at what happens prompts a public reaction, but I think the fact that videos are hard evidence (until deep fakes become popularized at least) is more important for the trials themselves.


...and this is why the autopsy results were not necessary for an arrest.

And you ignore points 3 and 4 completely. These, of course, show the blatant racism of US society.

Given how the US legal system works, we'll get more verdicts like this one, just as we have been able to get in the past few years.


I would be happy to see this prediction proven correct. My cynical heart thinks otherwise, and I hope to be proven wrong again.

——————-

Unthinking Majority wrote:The courts are often a bit slow. It's also during a COVID pandemic so there's further barriers and slowness etc. 1 year seems normal I guess. It's a high profile murder case. They have to select a jury, both sides need time to gather evidence, question witnesses, and build a case, and they have to get in line behind any other back-up court cases , especially again with COVID.

I don't think the length of time to convict is abnormal. The OJ Simspon case, where they were basically doing the opposite (trying to convict a black man for murder) took well over a year too (June 1994 date of murder, Oct. 1995 date of verdict).


For me, it was more the fact that months of protests and international media attention was needed.

If these two things would have never happened, Mr. Floyd would have been dismissed as a man who died of medical causes while being arrested, which was what the Minneapolis Police Department had said initially.

Unthinking Majority wrote:I think a better question is:

-what would have happened to Chauvin if people weren't filming the incident?
-would the police chief have testified against Chauvin had there not been such international outcry and pressure put on him?
-Would the verdict have been guilty had there not been so much attention on the case against Chauvin, and/or there not been 4 black people on the jury?


If no one had filmed it, Mr. Floyd’s killer would be walking the streets right now with a uniform on and a gun on his hip.
#15168450
Pants-of-dog wrote:My grand claims were that cops generally get away with killing unarmed people, especially if they are BIPOC.

You never seem to disagree. You simply point out isolated cases where another result occurred.

Cops get away with this kind of abuse of power all of the time, excessive force and murder against blacks and everyone else. This is why they keep doing it with impunity. Anyone who disagrees with this is a bootlicker.

30 years since Rodney King and nothing has changed.

By wat0n
#15168453
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think a better question is:

-what would have happened to Chauvin if people weren't filming the incident?
-would the police chief have testified against Chauvin had there not been such international outcry and pressure put on him?
-Would the verdict have been guilty had there not been so much attention on the case against Chauvin, and/or there not been 4 black people on the jury?


1. I think Chauvin would have been able to walk free. He would have claimed, as done in the MPD report, that George Floyd physically resisted arrest and that this justified the restraint.
2. I doubt that the police chief would have testified against him because the chief, like most people, would presume Chauvin and the rest would have been honest and they would have claimed Floyd physically resisted arrest (which they in fact did).
3. If the incident was filmed but somehow there wasn't any attention, yes, I think the verdict would have still been the same. The filming was key to show the use of force was not legitimate in any way. Not just to the jurors or even us, but to the cops themselves, which is not a small thing.

As for the other cops, they are going to be tried for abetting murder.

Pants-of-dog wrote:When you say that, you are agreeing with me and then describing different reasons why I am right.


But it's an important reason. Grand juries are meant to be check against prosecutors trying to prosecute people for no good reasons, and also help to involve the broader community into the judicial process (for good or evil).

Pants-of-dog wrote:The burden of evidence for arresting Mr. Floyd’s killer was satisfied without the autopsy results.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. The whole incident arose from a call alleging Floyd had paid with a fake bill and left, which did warrant some police action - meaning that a plain assault charge wouldn't really hold on its own. Then there were the claims about Floyd's state (also part of the call, alleging he was "drunk") and how that was the cause of death, which were discarded by the autopsy.

It may sound like nitpicking, but it's not because the police did show up as part of their legitimate functions whether one likes it or not.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Any other person who had acted in the same way would have been arrested while committing the murder.


Indeed, but they would be charged for assault before the autopsy would come up confirming Floyd died as a result of it. Then you would get the homicide charges up. A citizen would not generally have a right to arrest Floyd because citizens arrests are only legitimate if an actual crime had been committed - probable cause doesn't apply for regular people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:...and this is why the autopsy results were not necessary for an arrest.


The autopsy results were necessary to establish Floyd died as a result of the restraint. The videos were necessary to understand the circumstances of the whole thing, and get cops themselves to acknowledge that Chauvin misused force.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you ignore points 3 and 4 completely. These, of course, show the blatant racism of US society.


I don't think the protests were as important for the outcome as you make them seem. All the available evidence (videos, autopsy reports, police testimony, medical testimony, etc) more than justified the verdict.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would be happy to see this prediction proven correct. My cynical heart thinks otherwise, and I hope to be proven wrong again.


I think so. Audiovisual materials are a game changer when it comes to crime in general. They allow you to defeat presumption of innocence when you add all the other available means (autopsies, DNA, scientific evidence, etc) into the mix. I find videos are particularly useful to deduce intent and fully understand the whole incident.

They are also great for self-defense claims, just like in this case a video doomed Chauvin, a video has exonerated cops in other situations. It goes both ways, really.
By Rich
#15168455
Pants-of-dog wrote:For me, it was more the fact that months of protests and international media attention was needed.

If these two things would have never happened, Mr. Floyd would have been dismissed as a man who died of medical causes while being arrested, which was what the Minneapolis Police Department had said initially.

And why do you care so much? Of all the injustice in the world why would it matter so much if Chauvin got away with it. Even if for some bizarre reason we were obsessed about racial justice in the United States, Southern-Central-African-Americans kill a lot more racial Europeans than vice versa. the same goes for SCA-Americans and Asians. If any racial category of Americans need to be taught the value of human life its surely SCA-Americans.

The majority of SCA-Americans may well be decent law abiding citizens, but the fact remains that the average SCA-American is significantly more likely to be engaged in criminality and significantly more likely to engage in violent crime. Anyone who knows anything about sociology and behavioural science knows that relatively modest deltas in the mean and median of a population distribution can produce huge geometric variance on the tails of the distribution. As long as one grasps a bit of basic maths, one realises that not only are SCA-Americans not killed at a higher rate than expected if the police had racial neutrality, they are actually killed at a lower level.

As another example of the huge effects of modest shifts in the mean on the tails of the probability distribution take Muslims. The large majority of Muslims in western countries have probably never engaged in a single act of religiously motivated violence towards non believers, but if you look at religiously motivated murders in western countries over the last decades, you will find that that the overwhelming majority have been committed by Muslims, although Muslims make up only a small percentage of western populations.

As a positive example of this phenomena you only have to look at the ridiculous number of Nobel prizes that Jews have won over the years. Or take the achievements of Jamaicans in sprint events. But I am sure if you compared average 100 /200 metre times for 20 something Jamaicans against say 20 something British people, I expect you would only see a very modest Jamaican advantage in mean times. As always small changes in the means produce huge geometric effects on the tails of the behavioural distributions.
#15168462
I think the best thing for the police to stop responding calls. Media and Democrats make it very difficult for policemen to do their jobs. I read on multiple sources that US cops now fear responding emergency calls.

Let people to slaughter each other in poor minority neighborhoods. That is how police behave in some Latin American and Middle East countries. It is better to ignore if situation is too dire.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15168468
Istanbuller wrote:I think the best thing for the police to stop responding calls.
:roll: How long did it take you to come up with this nugget?

Istanbuller wrote: Media and Democrats make it very difficult for policemen to do their jobs.
Only if they are doing their jobs very badly, where they are a threat to the people they are supposed to protect and serve.

Istanbuller wrote:I read on multiple sources that US cops now fear responding emergency calls.
Those police should probably quit and become accountants, or game designers. They are clearly not suited to a job dealing with the public.

Istanbuller wrote:Let people to slaughter each other in poor minority neighborhoods.
Thanks for coming out of the closet, with that not-so-subtle racism. :knife:

Istanbuller wrote:That is how police behave in some Latin American and Middle East countries. It is better to ignore if situation is too dire.
What situation is too dire in America, and why do you have such an ignorant view of police in other countries?
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 22

A new film has been released destroying the offic[…]

Sounds like perfect organized crime material ex[…]

Since you keep insisting on pretending that the I[…]

Commercial foreclosures increase 97% from last ye[…]